
Class 



Book -ryn 

SMITHSONIAN DEPOSIT 



^6 



LETTER 



OF 




HON. JOHN FINE, 



TO HIS CONSTITUENTS, 



AUGUST, 1840. 



^^ 



.^ 



X 



1 






S' 



v9 



^ LETTER, &c 



To the Electors of St. Lawrence and Franklin Counties, Neu-YorJ,-. 

Having been honored by your votes with a seat in Congress, and 
having served through a long and fatiguing session, I purpose to lay 
before you a plain and short statement of some of the important measures 
wliich were debated and acted on in the House of Representatives, and 
the reasons which governed me in my votes. 

In the South and West, our public men meet their constituents in 
promiscuous assemblies and give an account of their official services, 
and answer any enquiries which may he put to them. The custom of 
the North is difierent. It is not usual for our Representatives, except 
in a collective capacity, to address their constituents even in writing. 

This departure from the practice of my predecessors may by some be 
disapproved. 

My apology, if any be needed, is the very great importance of the 
measures, upon which I was called to act, and the desire of your ajipro- 
val after knowing the reasons which influenced me. To many it may 
seem strange that I preserved an unbroken silence throughout the session. 
I think you would acquit me of blame, if you could have been present 
to witness the difficulty and struggle with which the floor was obtained, 
and the daily waste of time by ihc raising of points of order, by tlio 
calling of the roll, on a demand of the yeas and nays upon unimportant 
questions, and by the continual repetition of bitter party harangues. 

The session was sufficiently protracted without my adding to its length. 

The first great question which divided the House, was, which of thr 
two setts of claimants from the state of New .Tcrscy, was entitled to be 
received as members. I voted in favor of those who arc now sitting, 
^Jecause they received a mnjoriiy of the votes of the people. 



This fact has been clearly shewn by a computation made by tlic Com- 
mittee on Elections. I regard the question, who is elected to congress, 
to depend on the further question, who received a majority of the votes 
as cast by the people ? When the latter is ascertained, the former is 
determined. This has been the uniform practice of congress since the 
organization of the government, and is in conformity with the constitu- 
tion. Indeed an election to office, and a majority of the votes which 
vvcre polled, would seem to bo the same thing. What then was the 
objection to the present members? It was, that others who did not 
receive the majority of the votes, were certified by the governor, under 
the broad seal of the state, to have been elected. It was contended by 
some that the commission of the governor was conclusive evidence that 
the persons who held it had been elected, and that it could not be ques- 
tioned without insult to the dignity of a sovereign state. 

This objection was answered by referring to the 5th sec. of the 1st 
art. of the Constitution, which says " That each house of congress shall 
" be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own 
" members." 

If the commission of the governor were prima facie evidence only of 
the facts it certified, then the presumption of its trinh is destroyed by the 
report of the committee, which conclusively shews that the sitting 
members, and not those who held the governor's commission, received 
a majority of the votes of the people. 

It may be asked, is no respect duo to the broad seal of a sovereign 
state ? I answer none, and deservedly none, when it certifies a false- 
hood. 

If there be one ingredient of fraud more than another which induces, 
nay compels the courts to disregard the attestation of contracts, it is 
falsehood ; and especially when the undisguised design in using the 
solemn forms of the law, is to gain for the falsehood a confiding reception. 

The house refused to admit cither class of claimants to scats, imtil it 
could be judicially ascertained and rci>oricd by the committee which 
had been elected. If the truth of the governor's commission had not 
been questioned, the certified claimants would have taken their seats as 
a matter of course. \nd when the truth of the trovenior's commission 



5 

was challentjfil, ami t viiicncc oi its uiilriiili inrscnlril at ilit' clcik'n 
taI>lo, and ilic lioldcrs of tlin commission adniittod it to I)o laiso, the 
liousc would have been justified in admitting to their seats the ])rcsent 
members. But from extreme caution and impartiality, the house de- 
clined to admit either class, until the committee could report the facts. 
The report which was subsequently made and adopted and on which 
the present members were received, i)rovcd ihcy were elected, li 
furtlier appeared ia tlie examinations by the committee, that the gov- 
ernor when he gave the eommisviion to the opposition candidates, knew 
they had not received a majority of the votes, and that the returns irom 
South Amboy and Millville had been withheld. And, strange as it may 
seem, the governor admitted it in his message to the legislature, and 
consoled himself with the reflection that congress could rectify his error. 
Hear his langtiage : 

" But we will be asked with force and propriety, is a candidate to 
" lose his seat in congress because a county clerk does not make a return 
"of votes. Certainly not. If throui;h inndverlencc or design, any 
" votes have not been returned by the clerk, it is in the power of the 
"House of Representatives in their discretion to allow those votes and 
" give the seat to tlie person who with those votes may be elected." 

The house of representatives did exercise this acknowledged power, 
and on the 10th March, by a majority of twenty-nine votes, admitted 
the present members. 

It was then alleged that some of the votes which had liccn polled 
were illegal; that it had been the custom in the state of New .fersey to 
receive the votes of foreigners without recpiiring proof of their naturali- 
zation, and that both political parties had practised it. This charge was 
referred to the committee to examine, and i)Ower was given to send for 
persons and papers and to select commissioners in New Jersey to take 
testimony. A very great amount of proof was taken by the opposing 
parties and submitted to the connnittee. More than five hundred votes 
became the subjects of investigation. The committee were emi)loyeil 
in their room eight hours per day for six weeks, and on the 18th .July 
the majority of the connnittee reported to the house, " that the result ot 
" their investigation Iiad been to increase the majority of the live claim- 
" ants who received the greatest number of votes from the whole state;" 



and iho committee recommended and the liousc adopted the resolution, 
" that the present sitting members were entitled to occupy their seats as 
"members of the house." 

This is a plain and true statement of the Jersey question. My judg- 
ment approves the vote which I gave to admit the present members, and 
I trust that you will agree with me, that more regard is due to the voice 
of the people as expressed at the polls, than to the commission of a 
governor when admitted and proved to be false, although it was sanc- 
tioned by the broad seal of a sovereign state. 

The next subject which distracted the house, was the manner in 
which to dispose of petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District 
of Columbia. These petitions did not come from the residents of the 
district, from either the slaves or the slave holders, nor did they profess 
to have their concurrence. The petitioners claimed that they were seek- 
ing a redress of grievances, but these grievances did not rest on them- 
selves but on the citizens of other states and of the District of Columbia, 
who neither comi>lained of the alleged grievances nor asked for their 
redress, but on the contrary protested against our interference. They 
did not proffer to make compensation to the master for the loss of his 
slave, but they asserted that slave holding was immoral and sinful, and 
they required of congress to abolish it in the District because of our 
exclusive jurisdiction. 

The 8th sec. of the 1st art. of the constitution of the United States, 
provides " that congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legisla- 
" tion in all cases whatsoever over such District, (not exceeding ten 
" miles square,) as may by cession of particular states and the accept- 
" ancc of congress become the seat of the government of the United 
" States." The acts of cession of Virginia and Maryland declare that 
the land therein described "be and the same is hereby forever ceded 
" and relinquished to the congress and government of the United States 
"in full and absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil as 
" persons residing or to reside therein, pursuant to the tenor and effect 
•" of the 8th sec. of the 1st art. of the constitution of the United States, 
^' provided that nothing herein contained shall be construed to vest 
^'iii the United States any right of properly in the soil ox to affect the 



"rights of individuals therein otherwise than the same shall or may b(^ 
" transferred by sueh individuals to the United States." 

I apprehend niucii error has arisen from a vague and indistinct 
construction of the terms "exclusive jurisdiction." The District was 
ceded to the United States for a seat of government, and nil power 
necessary to secure this object was also granted. Besides which, 
con-fress has to act the part of a state legislature over its local concerns. 
It cannot be thought that in regard to these, congress should legislate 
irrespective of the will of the citizens of the District ; much less in oppo- 
sition to it. When a majority of the citizens shall require congress to 
abolish slavery, it will be proper to deliberate upon the subject and 
endeavor to adopt a system similar to that adopted by our own state, to 
put an end to the existence of slavery within our own limits, or some 
other which shall be more practicable and more in accordance with the 
wishes and interests of all the parties to be affected by if. But neither 
law nor equity can admit the proposition of the abolitionists to set free 
at once the existing slave against the will of the owner, and without 
rendering to him a just compensation. The terms " exclusive jurisdic- 
tion," I take to mean not a jurisdiction of absolute unlimited power, 
but one not to be interfered with by any other legislative body. I un- 
derstand the constitution of the United States to shield the citizens of 
the District in their rights of person and of property against the usurpa- 
tion of congress, as well as the citizens of the states against the encroach- 
ments of their legislatures.* The institution of slavery is municipal and 
not national. It existed in Virginia and Maryland, and slaves were 
regarded as property, the subjects of sale and transfer, before the adoption 
of the constitution. The constitution viewed slavery as a long jjrevi- 
'>tisly existing colonial institution, and recognized its continuance in 
three of its articles. 

1. It made the slave as well as white population the basis of rcpre- 
p^'Vation in congress, five blacks being counted as three whites. Sec 
.'■rt. 1, sec. 2. 

2. Congress was prohibited until 1808, from passing any law to 
prevent the further importation of slaves. Art. I, sec. 9. 

*Art. 5th of tlie umciidinciits to tliu constitution : "No person sliall be deprived ol 
life, liberty or pronerty, without due process of law, nor shall i)rivalo proinrtv be taken 
for public use without just compensation." 



8 



3. Tliu owncrw ul' lugitive slaves were auiliorisod to retake tlieiii in 
any of the states, and the states were expressly restricted from discharg- 
ing the slave from the control of his owner. Art. 4, sec. 2. 

Not a syllable can be found in that instrument from which the most 
loose constructionist can infer, the intention of its framers to surrender 
the least further control over slavery to congress. The power not having 
been given, it was reserved by an express clause of the constitution to the 
states and the people. " The powers not delegated to the United States 
" by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to 
" the states respectively or to the people." Art. 10 of amend, to con- 
stitution. 

The general government was organized under the constitution, March 
4, 1789 ; Virginia ceded her part of the District, Dec, 3, 1789, and 
Maryland, Dec. 19, 1791. The powers of congress as a local legis- 
lature over the District were derived from these cessions, and when 
portions of the citizens of Virginia and Maryland were transferred, 
together with the territory, the citizens retained the rights which had 
been i)reviously guaranteed to them by the constitution. They still 
retain the right " not to be deprived of their property without due 
" process of law, nor to have their private property taken against their 
"will for public use without just compensation." Virginia and Mary- 
land could not abridge these rights by legislation before the cession, 
nor abrogate them by the cession. If congress have no power to acton 
this subject without the concurrence of the people of the District, it can 
be of no use to receive and report upon the petitions of strangers, residing 
in distant states, unless it be to inform them of our limited power to 
legislate. 

This has frequently been done. Congress, in former years, lest it 
might be thought not sufficiently respectful, have referred similar peti- 
tions, and committees have uniformly reported, that congress had no 
constitutional power to act upon the subject, without the concurrence 
of the citizens of the district. Still, at every succeeding session, these 
petitions from distant states have increased in number, and at the last 
session one member had 515 of them to present. For what other pur- 
pose than agitation, is this continued '! And is the time of congress of 
ou little value, that we arc justified in wasting days and weeks on 



9 

inaitors upon which it is not proper to act, and tho discussion of' which 
wounds and estranges the affections of the south, and fends to weaken 
the bonds of the union ' 

Suppose that a number of intolerant Protestants at the north, (and 
many such may be found,) should petition congress to confiscate the 
property of tho Catiiolics in the District, and appropriate tho avails of 
their nunnery and chapels to other objects, and with a perseverance and 
2cal peculiar to religious zealots, should continue to petition after re- 
peated answers that we were forbid by the constitution to legislate 
on the subject ? Do yon think we should act harshly to reject these 
petitions ? And docs not the constitution recognize property in slaves 
as well as in churches? The question is not whether slavery bean 
evil, moral and political, nor whether in framing a new constitution 
you would be willing to recognize it, but it is, shall we prove faithful in 
observing the present constitution, or perjure ourselves by violating it ? 

It is thought by some that the rejection of abohtion petitions has 
interlered with and abridged the right of the people to petition. Is this 
so ? The constitution expressly protects the right of the people peaceably 
to assemble and petition the government for a redress ot grievances.*" 

In the governments of Europe this is denied to the people, and in 
England, at the time of our revolution, assemblies of more than ten 
persons to petition parliament were prohibited under severe penalties. 
It is very clear that the rejection by congress of abolition petitions does 
not interfere with the right of the people to assemhle for any purpose. 
I believe the right of petition is not derived from the constitution, but 
is an elemental and inherent right in every free citizen throughout our 
whole country. It required no clause in the constitution to grant or 
protect it, tind it is not in the power of cojigress to take it away. I 
believe also there is a discretion in every legislative body to receive 
or reject petitions and to grant or deny their prayer. 

This discretion is a reasonable and not an arbitrary one, and mav bo 
abused ; bur the abuse forms no argument against the existence of tho 
power. 



Art. J, anieiiiled '■oii-tituticii. congress bluill make •■ no law n.spcctiiiE an establish- 
nieiit ot roliirion or iiruliibiiiiic the tree exwcise thereof; or .ibridEiiig tlie freeUoi'i 
of speixh (,r ol the prrs.=;, or th.' riglit of tJie people poaceablv to assemble and to petition 
JliegovcrjHiiejit forreclreiK of (.'fievaijcos.'' 



10 

TiiQ object oi icl'ciriag a pctiUon to a coiunuUeo, is to asccituin ilit' 
truth of its statement or the proper course of action upon it, or botli ; 
but when the facts are not disputed, and there is no doubt on the minds 
of a majority that congress ought not and cannot under preecnt circum- 
stances constitutionally act, I see no use in referring it. The committee 
on the judiciary, consisting of nine members, among whom were Messrs. 
Hoffman and Barnard, of Ncw-York, Storrs, of Connecticut, and Mason, 
of Ohio, made on the 5th June, 1840, an unanimous report, through 
their chairman, Mr. Sergeant, of Philadclpliia, which was unanimously 
adopted by the house, in which the constitutional power to reject peti- 
tions, without referring them, is distinctly recognized. The report was 
upon the petition of one Spooner, of Massachusetts, against the official 
conduct of John McLean, one of the judges of the supreme court of the 
United States, and was presented by Mr. Adam.?, after several of his 
colleagues had declmed to present it. 

The report says, " that the charges upon the memonalist'a own shew- 
" ing are unfounded and unjust, and the committee are further of opin- 
" ion, that there is no ground whatever for enquiry, and are unanimously 
" of opinion, that if the memorial had been read when it was presented, 
" and its contents understood, the house would have come to the same 
" conclusion." In other words, would have rejected it at once without 
referring it. And to prevent the " blame which the committee seem to 
" apprehend might attach to the member who presented the petition, they 
" add it is not their intention to reflect upon him, as the memorial cannot 
" be said to be disrespectful to the house, and is forbidden by no rule." 

Nor is the refusal to receive abolition petitions a novel case and with- 
out precedent. The United States senate has not received them since 
1835-6. When they arc presented to that body objection is made to 
their reception, and it is then immediately moved to lay the question oi 
reception upon the table. This motion is uniformly carried, and the 
petition is never again heard of. The house of representatives has done 
directly what the senate has done indirectly. The former rejects, the 
latter refuses to receive. 

Under the Atherton resolutions, adopted by (he house of representa- 
lives of the last congress, abolition petitions, immediately on being pre- 
sented, were laid on the lable and no further action was allowed, The 



11 

New-York house of assembly, of 1830, in whieli were many members 
of the lain house, resolved that this was a denial of the right of petition. 
If the rejection of a petition, and the laying it on the table on its being 
presented, are both equally a denial of the right of petition, I sec no 
other way to acknowledge the right, but to report in favor of the petition- 
There is no need of referring a petition to get q knowledge of its con- 
tents, for the rules of the house require the contents to be concisely 
stated before it can be rejected. I cannot draw any other conclusion 
from the resolutions of the lost New-York legislature, than that they 
desire congress should act f avour all 1/ on abolition petitions. To suppose 
they wish us to refer them and then reject them, is to believe the legis- 
lature would ask us to trific with the petitioners by encouraging hopes 
we intend before hand to frustrate. I regret and deplore that public 
men should, for the sake of a temporary popularity, attempt to confound 
the right of petition, which is held sacred by us all, with the obligation 
of congress to aid the abolitionists in their imrightenus efforts to disturb 
the peace of the union. 

The third grotrt question which divided congress at the last session, 
was the adoption of the Independent Treasury. It is unnecessary for 
me to discuss the wisdom and expediency of this measure. It had been 
fully discussed by you before my election, and I was nominated and 
elected to support it. Not to have voted for it, or to have voted against 
it, would have been a betrayal of your confidence and have sunk me in 
the opinion not only of my friends, but of my whole constituency. 
Nevertheless, I ask your indulgence of a few remarks upon the character 
and influence of this great measure. I shall not venture upon debateablo 
ground by stating facts of doubtful existence, or by using arguments 
which are questionable. My object is rather to lay before you what I 
believe to be admitted by both parties. 

It is not denied, except by a very few, that this measure is consistent 
with the constitution, and its friends are gratified that a proposed im- 
portant change in the administration of the treasury department is 
conceded by almost all to be constitutional. You will observe that no 
change is proposed in the collection or disbursement of the revenue. 
These have always been managed by individual public officers, and will 
oo continue to be. The custody of the revenue, intermediate its collcc 



12 

tion and disbursement, has been hitherto committed to the banks. It is' 
now proposed to commit it to officers appointed by the government, 
under suitable bonds, and with the sanction of criminal punishment for 
unfaithfulness, besides subjecting them to the sudden and repeated 
inspection of sagacious agents, selected by the Secretary of the Treasury. 

It is worthy of note, that the government has no power to compel the 
ha-aks to take charge of the public treasure. They may accept or decline 
it as it suits their convenience — neither is there nny power to punish 
their delinquency. They may refuse to perform their trust, and with 
the plea of inability confess they have wilfully purloined or squandered 
the public moneys, but there is no power in the government to pimish 
them. 

If the Independent Treasury had been established at the time there 
was a largo deposite of public money in the state banks, apprehensions 
might very naturally have been entertained that its effects would be what 
those of the (iij''''^bution bill of 1836 were, a suspension of specie pay. 
ments by the banks, and a consequent temporary prostration of business ; 
but the treasury is now comparatively empty, and the rcccijjts arc not 
more than equal to the disbursements. I cannot see how the measure 
can be productive of evil. During the employment of the state banks, 
it was alleged they were subservient to the will of the executive from 
being dependent on his patronage. The selected banks, from the addi- 
tion of the dcposites, became more powerful than their neighbors, and a 
bitter jealousy was engendered toward the government. The Secretary 
of the Treasury would sometimes change the deposite banks, and assign 
reasons which appeared sufficient to him, but by others and always by 
those interested would appear otherwise. A preference must of neces- 
sity be exercised in favor of a few banks to the injury of the rest, and 
be subject to the suspicion of party favoritism. 

It is not likely that any party would receive the praise of passing by 
institutions under the management of friends, and of selecting others 
under the direction of political opponents. This government influence 
over the state banks, which tends to bow the popular will to a spirit of 
gain, is abolished by an Independent Treasury. The government is not 
permitted to tamper with the banks by the offer of depositing the public 
rconey or by tlie threat of its withdrawal, but an entire separation is 



made between the political ;i7i(l mono}- power ol the coiiniry. 'i"hc 
influence of the government is lessened, and the political troedom ot" the 
jieople remains untempted. 

Another eftect of the Independent Treasury will bo to preserve the 
currency of the country more uniform by withholding from the banks 
the means and inducement of sudden contractions and expansions. The 
receipts and disbursments of the government are necessarily variable. 
The receipts are soinc times large, and when deposited in banks, tempt 
to an increase of discounts and expansion of circulation. Again tho 
disbursements are heavy, the revenue falls off, and the deposiles arc 
recalled and the banks are obliged to contract their discounts and call 
111 their circulation. Under the operation of the former a spirit of rash 
speculation is encouraged hostile to regular business, to industry and 
morals. And under the latter, a pressure is created subversive of the 
iiopes of thousands in the depreciation and sacrifice of property. 

A third effect which may be expected from this meas'- ,, is a diminu- 
tion of our imports. If the banks be unable to grant large accommoda- 
tions by the help of government deposites, it is probable that our pur- 
chases from abroad will be graduated by the surplus products of tho 
country to be exported. A debt contracted in the purchase of foreign 
goods is not paid by the substitution of another debt in the form of stocks. 
It is known to you that large amounts of stocks of the banks and of 
states, of rail-roads and canal companies have been sent abroad in pledge 
for foreign goods which are yet to be paid for by the toil and industry of 
our people. 

The old fashioned philosophy of Franklin, to buy less and sell more, 
as the means of increasing individual and national wealth, is again 
receiving favor. We cannot pass sumptuary laws and forbid to tho peo- 
ple the privilege of indulging in the luxury and licentiousness of Europe ; 
but the government need not encourage the passion by the loan of its 
revenue. 

I shall notice but one other influence of the Independent Treasury, 
It will tend to prevent a surplus revenue. This, as well as the former, 
IS its natural result. If the revenue should at any tune unexpectedly 
increase beyond the expenditures of the government, this very increase 
must tend to check .itself. The accumulation of specie in the treasury 



14 

iiiKl its alj'^lrnction fiom ihe bnnkp, will diminish their basis ol cii'CU. 
hiion nml means of diBconnt, and by operating as a check to excessive 
trade will assist to prevent a redundant revenue. It has accordingly been 
urged by the opposition ns an argument against the measure, that it will 
tend to keep the treasury poor. It is natural and consistent for those 
who believe in the power and poHcy of the general government to 
collect revenue to bo disbursed in works of internal improvement, to be 
opposed to the Independent Treasury. But I believe a large majority of 
you think the constitution gives no such authority. You are strict con- 
structionists and believe the power of iho government has been delegated 
for specific purposes, and cannot be extended beyond the plain letter of 
the constitution. The proposition would have been indignantly rejected 
by the framers of the constitution, to lay a direct tax to accumulate 
capital to build roads and canals, or to deposite it with banks for the 
benefit of commerce. Is it not equally inconsistent with the constitution 
to collect a surplus revenue by indirect taxation, and to use it in the 
same way. 

There is authority in the constitution to borrow money but none to 
loan it to states, to banks, or to individuals. The convention did not 
anticipate nor provide for a surplus revenue. 

I have thus briefly laid before you some of the effects of the Independ- 
ent Treasury. This, with the other measures of the administration are 
soon to be submitted for your approval. By them let it bo judged. It is 
beneath the character of an intelligent voter to allow himself to be drawn 
away from the consideration of measures to the admiration of men. 
Public office should not be bestowed to reward supposed merit, but as 
the means of carrying out the opinions and will of the people. The 
candidates should be regarded as the personation of principles and of 
measures. Whatever may be the opinions of the opposition presidential 
candidate himself, a majority of his friends, so far as my means have 
enabled me to judge, are the friends of a national bank, of a high tarifl' 
for protection, of a surplus revenue, and the appropriation of it to works 
of internal improvement, either directly or by loaning it to the states: 
of the assumption or guaranty of the debts of the states, or the distribu- 
tion or pledge of the public lands for their payment, and of the abolition 
of slavery in the District of Columbia, regardless of the will of its ciii- 



15 

Zona. They w liu can JeliLionitoly approve of these mcasuics coiiuiU 
and corrupting to iho country, unconstitutional and dangerous to the 
harmony of the Union, ehouUl vote fur Willium II. Harrison ; for under 
the administration of our present Cliief Mugidtrule such measures cannot 
and will not be adopted. 

A favorite object of tlio administration party has boon to reduce tlic 
roccipta into tho Treasury by lce6cnin£r tho duties on imports. The 
consumers of foreign goods and not tho importers boar tho burden ol 
this indirect taxation. Ip it not better that tho pcoi)le'8 money should 
remain in tho pocketa of tho people until it bo needed by tho govern- 
ment for coecB of indisputablo constitutional necessity. Another favorite 
measure of the administration has been to lessen tho expenditures of tlic 
government. Wo gave ovidenco at the last session of our sincerity as 
friends of retrenchment in the amount of the appropriations, which do 
not exceed 20 millions of dollars. Wo resisted tho clTorta of the opposi- 
tion to increase them, and rejected their ofler to voto for a loan of 
money or a further issue of treasury notes. We preferred to add a clause 
to the army and fortification bills authorising the president to delay the 
completion of some of the works in case of a deficiency of means. 
Freedom from debt, the lowest roceipts of dutiee and the smallest expen- 
ditures consistont with the necessary wants of the country, are the 
Icgitimato fruits of democratic policy. 

A national bank to have sufficient control over the state banks to 
regulate their circulation must be made the fiscal agent of the government 
and its notes become a Ic^al tender of government due«. Besides which, 
to render a bank with a large capital free from the danger of suspension 
resulting from the periodical fluctuations of trade, it is desirable if not 
essential, that a considerable portion of ita capital be invested in gov- 
ernment stocks. In timc6 of plenty these stocks will pay an interest, 
and in seasons of pressure, may be readily converted into money. A 
bank whose whole capital is loaned to individuals, cannot thus defend 
Itself, for its securities become least available when most needed. 

A government stock is the evidence of a national debt, the crcalani 
of which in peace pre-supposcs a lavish expenditure of money by con- 
gress or the assumption of the debts of the states. To pay punctually 
<hc interest and madually extinguish the principal of a national dclii 



V- 



1(5 

will require an unnnnirn.l increase ol duties on imports. A high tariil' 
when once established cannot be suddenly lessened without serious 
injury to the manufacturing interests of the country. Such has been 
our e.icperiencc. A surplus revenue with its attendant evils will be sure 
to follow the payment of the debt. 

These different measures of a national bank and a national debt, a 
high tariff and a surplus revenue, seem destined from the history of our 
country to fallow each other. Accordingly the friends of any one of 
them, arc for the most part the friends of all. But I am cnterin^r upon 
topics the proper discussion of which might fill a volume. My a.im was 
rather to present the policy and projects of the two parties that you may 
so choose between them as to leave no ground of future regret. I 
therefore close. 

My domestic condition, the father of seven children from twenty 
years to six months of age, compels me to decline a re-election. The 
first session of every congress has become too long to make congressional 
life consistent with a proper discharge of my social duties. 

Accept my warmest thanks for your past confidence, and believe me. 

Yours truly, 

JOHN FINE. 
Ogdenshurgh, N. V., August, 1840. 



Lfc M 10 



i 






»i 



